For s2000man and orion
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0 
For s2000man and orion
The last thread was closed because they were incorrect and didnt want to ramble on any more my sister did this and brother did that and thast what happened...
here are some actual numbers to prove that it doenst matter if its a hill or a flat surface.. if car A wins hill, it will win FLAT....
first thing first...
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
with this in mind... at the end of the race... we will calculate the experimental data... that energy found in the cars kenetic energy CAN NOT be greater OR LESS than the kenetic energy and potential energy at the hill race....
with that being said... lets start
you claim to win flat race.... by 1 car.. so lets say thats about 5mph faster than your buddies camaro...or trans am, whatever it is..
s2000=1255kg say finished at 100mph= 44.7 meters/second
trans am=1551kg and finished behind the s2000 say at 95mph=42.5m/s
at the end of the race, the engine in the honda put (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules of energy....
the trans am put in (.5)(1551)(42.5)=32958 joules
compare the amount of energy the honda and the trans am put into the car... notice the amount was higher for the trans am yet it lost... thats because the honda weighs less...
now, for the hill race. nothing changes BUT the hill is at an incline...
lets say for both races they raced for 10seconds.....actually it doesnt matter what or how long they raced or what theda the hill was at... but lets say the hill was at a 20 degree angle...
OK,
race 2 uphill....
lets go with orions and s2000man recreation... since the first one was correct in his words.. we will compare his ...
this time the trans am/camaro thing was ahead of him by say 1 car also... 3/4 whatever....
sinec they are going uphill, they will be going slower... so the lead instead of 5mph, will be lets say 4mph....
at the end of the race, lets say they shut down at 80mph for the trans am and 76 mph respectivly for the honda...
the speed is lower because we cannot change the the varieables... if we accelerated for 10 seconds on flat road, we must do the same on hill which will result in lower speed... 80mph might not be correct but its quite irrelavent as you will see in a second...
at the shut down point of 80mph, lets say they traveled 1000feet up the hill...
1000feet=304.8meters..
80mph=35.8m/s
76mph=34.0m/s
a hill of 20 degree will have given them a rise above there starting point...
for 20 degree hill, and 1000feet or 304.8meters, thats 104.2meters above their starting point ( or potential energy that left the system).
since the honda was behind this race... lets say it went 103meters above its starting point...
now combining the new KE and PE of each car, this must be
the trans am must put out 117.5% more energy into the its system as compared to the honda. it doenst matter if this race was for 30 minutes or 4 seconds.. the trans am will put out 117.5% more energy because you are not changing the output while driving, such as nitrous or adding someone to the car while racing...
sets see...
trans am (.5)(1551)(35.8)=27762joules... <-- that is all kenetic..
trans am's potential energy is mass x gravity ( 1551 x 9.81)= 15215N x height (104.2meters)= 1585415joules
combine the 2= 1613197 joules..
honda s2000.. ill run the numbers to save you time trying to read this.
(.5)(1255)(34)=21335juoles <-- kenetic energy of moving car
+ potential energy
(1255 x 9.81 x 103)=1268089 joules
combined=1289424 joules...
compare the two...
output for trans am is 125% more than the honda...
how come on the flat the trans am put in only 117% more energy than the honda, but on the hill it put in 125%....THATS BECAUSE IS NOT POSSIBle.... you cannot creat nor destroy energy.. if you had 125% more energy avaliable on the hill, where did it go on the flat.... if it didnt go anywhere, the trans am WOULD NOT HAVE LOST>>>> plain and SIMPLE
the engine doesnt care if your on a hill... it puts in the same amount REGARDLESS...
if you stayed with the 117% more energy than the honda, you would clearly see that its IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE TRANS AM IS IN FRONT....
i have shown your RAW freaking numbers...
SO the FINAL CONCLUSION....
IF You loose on a hill, you will loose on the flat race...
IF you Win on the flat, you will WIN on the hill......
CALL ME THE MYTH BUSTER
here are some actual numbers to prove that it doenst matter if its a hill or a flat surface.. if car A wins hill, it will win FLAT....
first thing first...
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
with this in mind... at the end of the race... we will calculate the experimental data... that energy found in the cars kenetic energy CAN NOT be greater OR LESS than the kenetic energy and potential energy at the hill race....
with that being said... lets start
you claim to win flat race.... by 1 car.. so lets say thats about 5mph faster than your buddies camaro...or trans am, whatever it is..
s2000=1255kg say finished at 100mph= 44.7 meters/second
trans am=1551kg and finished behind the s2000 say at 95mph=42.5m/s
at the end of the race, the engine in the honda put (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules of energy....
the trans am put in (.5)(1551)(42.5)=32958 joules
compare the amount of energy the honda and the trans am put into the car... notice the amount was higher for the trans am yet it lost... thats because the honda weighs less...
now, for the hill race. nothing changes BUT the hill is at an incline...
lets say for both races they raced for 10seconds.....actually it doesnt matter what or how long they raced or what theda the hill was at... but lets say the hill was at a 20 degree angle...
OK,
race 2 uphill....
lets go with orions and s2000man recreation... since the first one was correct in his words.. we will compare his ...
this time the trans am/camaro thing was ahead of him by say 1 car also... 3/4 whatever....
sinec they are going uphill, they will be going slower... so the lead instead of 5mph, will be lets say 4mph....
at the end of the race, lets say they shut down at 80mph for the trans am and 76 mph respectivly for the honda...
the speed is lower because we cannot change the the varieables... if we accelerated for 10 seconds on flat road, we must do the same on hill which will result in lower speed... 80mph might not be correct but its quite irrelavent as you will see in a second...
at the shut down point of 80mph, lets say they traveled 1000feet up the hill...
1000feet=304.8meters..
80mph=35.8m/s
76mph=34.0m/s
a hill of 20 degree will have given them a rise above there starting point...
for 20 degree hill, and 1000feet or 304.8meters, thats 104.2meters above their starting point ( or potential energy that left the system).
since the honda was behind this race... lets say it went 103meters above its starting point...
now combining the new KE and PE of each car, this must be
the trans am must put out 117.5% more energy into the its system as compared to the honda. it doenst matter if this race was for 30 minutes or 4 seconds.. the trans am will put out 117.5% more energy because you are not changing the output while driving, such as nitrous or adding someone to the car while racing...
sets see...
trans am (.5)(1551)(35.8)=27762joules... <-- that is all kenetic..
trans am's potential energy is mass x gravity ( 1551 x 9.81)= 15215N x height (104.2meters)= 1585415joules
combine the 2= 1613197 joules..
honda s2000.. ill run the numbers to save you time trying to read this.
(.5)(1255)(34)=21335juoles <-- kenetic energy of moving car
+ potential energy
(1255 x 9.81 x 103)=1268089 joules
combined=1289424 joules...
compare the two...
output for trans am is 125% more than the honda...
how come on the flat the trans am put in only 117% more energy than the honda, but on the hill it put in 125%....THATS BECAUSE IS NOT POSSIBle.... you cannot creat nor destroy energy.. if you had 125% more energy avaliable on the hill, where did it go on the flat.... if it didnt go anywhere, the trans am WOULD NOT HAVE LOST>>>> plain and SIMPLE
the engine doesnt care if your on a hill... it puts in the same amount REGARDLESS...
if you stayed with the 117% more energy than the honda, you would clearly see that its IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE TRANS AM IS IN FRONT....
i have shown your RAW freaking numbers...
SO the FINAL CONCLUSION....
IF You loose on a hill, you will loose on the flat race...
IF you Win on the flat, you will WIN on the hill......
CALL ME THE MYTH BUSTER
Last edited by gsrchad; Mar 10, 2005 at 03:06 AM.
Damn......
and u said energy could not be created or destroyed.....i thought it was matter could not be created or destroyed?
but anyways....nice post......sounds like u know your ****
and u said energy could not be created or destroyed.....i thought it was matter could not be created or destroyed?
but anyways....nice post......sounds like u know your ****
The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits. As seen on TV by QBoi.
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,860
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta Ga
Rep Power: 307 
gsrchads first post is like reading latin for me but it sounds like he knows what he is talking about. I think the point is irrelevant and useless to prove but...sounds good to me
Registered!!
iTrader: (20)
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,111
Likes: 1
From: Cleveland, OH
Rep Power: 329 energy isn't created or destroyed... but it does get converted into things you didn't incorporate into your equations like:
heat
light
sound
so if someone doesn't have traction on the flat (or has traction less than the other person), and squeels their tires, there goes some of the energy you were wondreing about. plus you have to come off the throttle a bit possibly to get the tires to hook up, costing energy. plus suspension differences. plus all kinds of crap. and driver ability/gearing come into play nowhere in the science.
20 degree hill is really steep too. yikes.
heat
light
sound
so if someone doesn't have traction on the flat (or has traction less than the other person), and squeels their tires, there goes some of the energy you were wondreing about. plus you have to come off the throttle a bit possibly to get the tires to hook up, costing energy. plus suspension differences. plus all kinds of crap. and driver ability/gearing come into play nowhere in the science.
20 degree hill is really steep too. yikes.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 10,857
Likes: 0
From: Gaithersburg, MD
Rep Power: 412 
Originally Posted by ACURAwerx
can't you create energy in a nuclear reactor?
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319 Hummm.... typical sophmore/junior in some engineering or physics major. They think they the world can be solved using the theories they learned from their little books. In this case he has gone pretty far to make a point that neglects a very key point.... the suspension. If you are going up a hill, different suspensions will load differently and cuase traction issues.
Edit: However your assumpution are correct and the calculations are good. You have a valid point, but have just left out a few other perameters, that all. And it doesn't hold in all cases, for instance a FWD drive car will not have good traction and hence can not put as much power to the ground, but your calculations where specific to two RWD cars, just be a little more specific when stateting the problems and solutions.
Edit: However your assumpution are correct and the calculations are good. You have a valid point, but have just left out a few other perameters, that all. And it doesn't hold in all cases, for instance a FWD drive car will not have good traction and hence can not put as much power to the ground, but your calculations where specific to two RWD cars, just be a little more specific when stateting the problems and solutions.
Last edited by Jrfish007; Mar 10, 2005 at 11:13 AM.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
Hummm.... typical sophmore/junior in some engineering or physics major. They think they the world can be solved using the theories they learned from their little books. In this case he has gone pretty far to make a point that neglects a very key point.... the suspension. If you are going up a hill, different suspensions will load differently and cuase traction issues.
there are a few great minds who disagree with you and your physics professor.
however, as I do, I'm going to note one more thing, since gsrchad talked to his physics professor.
I myself have talked to a physics professor, and he gave me the same equations that orion squall gave me. So it seems we have 2 different physics professors saying 2 different things. I also asked my great uncle (he works for nasa as an engineer, and his team lead the development of the first moon buggy, as well as played a part in developing the saturn V rocket. he has a physics degree from a little place called MIT. maybe you've heard of it?) My uncle stated the same thing that my physics professor said, and what me and orion have been saying. Also, a current physicist on s2ki.com confirmed the same thing.
a point my uncle made was this. when they launch rockets and shuttles into space, they must calculate the force needed to accelerate the rocket at a given speed. this equation directly involves the mass of the payload they are launching. (and it's a **** ton of mass that's for sure!) he also said that as the mass of the rocket they are launching increases, the amount of force energy they must launch the rocket with increases exponentially. this is in direct disagreement with what gsrchad is saying.
his example was this. let's say they are launching a 250,000 pound rocket into space. this rocket may require a force of upwards of 10,000 lb/ft force. (they don't use lb/ft but he's trying to gear this example toward our automotive technology). now increase the rocket to 350,000 pounds. though the force of gravity is the same, the increase in energy required to move the force the same acceleration rate as the 250,000 pound rocket is not. it's not a direct percentage. it's an exponent. according to gsrchad, 250,000 pound rocket at 10,000 lb/ft force would only require 14,000 lb/ft of force to move 350,000 pounds at the same acceleration rate as the lighter rocket. HOWEVER< THIS IS NOT TRUE!!!! The true amount needed to maintain acceleration has grown by an exponential amount, and this rocket will actually require upwards of 16,000 lb/ft force.
and for those in the dark, that statement is this. the force working against the acceleration of a mass up a hill will have a greater effect in direct proportion with an object's mass.
in other words, take a civic and do this.
0-60 on a flat surface is 8 seconds. do it up a hill, and it will be a 0-60 of say 9 seconds.
now take the same civic and load it up with 500 pounds.
0-60 might now be 10 seconds on a flat surface. but up a hill it becomes 13 seconds.
why? because the force working against a car going up a hill (by the way this is NOT GENERAL GRAVITY g which is constant!!) is magnified with greater mass. ie, the more mass, the more the force against your car is multiplied when going up a hill.
according to gsrchad and his professor, this isn't true. according to a different physics professor, a current physicist, an MIT graduate and NASA engineer, and me and orion squall, this IS true.
As orion said:
NOT all mass are being pulled the same way. G=m*g. Please note that in here G is in Newton, it is a FORCE vector toward -y; if the mass is on a flat surface.
G is NOT equal g. Gravitational FORCE is not the same as Gravitational ACCELERATION! One can substruct force but can NOT substruct acceleration!
DeltaD=Dinitial+Vinitial+da/dx, that is, you need to take derivative of the acceleration.
why do you use earth free fall acceleration as mass acceleration???? and assuming 90%g here 80%g there? The two mass we are talking about are not at freefall. The resultant acceleration on a mass is F_resultant/mass, I have already shown in my exemple on the slop the smaller mass has positive resultant force while the bigger mass has negative force. From the force you then calculate their acceleration.
when a car is on a totally flat surface, the gravity force vector (-y direction), g=m*a will cancel out with the normal force pointing at (+y). Therefore the movement of the car is purely depend on the kinetic friction of the tire, that is, directly associate to the torque t=d*f.
When the car is on an inclined surface, the gravity force vector will have 2 component, (-y and -x) the -x will be gx=-m*a cos(angle) where angle is the incline surface versus flat surface. A greater mass will definitely result a greater -x component therefore a smaller over all +x force.
please remember all what newton was saying is that 2 objects of different mass will have the same acceleration on a given planet, therefore "land" at the same time; however, the force excercice on them is totally governed by the 3rd law f=m*a...don't confuse the two.
and this from another physicist.
m = mass (units Kg)
a = acceleration (units m/s^2)
f = dissipative forces (aerodynamic, loss in transmission, etc..) (units Newtons)
theta = incline angle, if you are going up a hill
g = accelration due to gravity (units m/s^2)
F = Net force that the ground exerts on the wheels (units Newtons)
then
m a = F - f - mg sin(theta)
If you are level ground, theta=0 and the last term on the right hand side vanishes. The situation changes if you are going up an incline since the gravitational force mg sin(theta) depends on mass. Therefore, the greater the mass, the greater the increase in force working AGAINST the forward acceleration of the car.
Last edited by S2000man01; Mar 10, 2005 at 11:22 AM.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by gsrchad
first thing first...
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
yet you never actually calculated velocity or acceleration.
me and orion are giving you the exact physics equations used to calculate velocity and acceleration rate.
all of your equations also show distance traveled over time, and you have plugged in arbitrary acceleration rates. again, however, you never took the time to calculate what those acceleration rates would be. in case you need to know how to do that, i'll give you the equations.
First you need the force working at acceleration for the car, ie the power the engine puts out. use this formula.
torque at a given rpm*current gear ratio*final gear ratio/(wheel circumference*pi). this is total output force. take this and divide it by it's mass, and that is your acceleration rate without factoring in any other forces except mass and gravity. however, we don't live in a vacuum and there is gravity to contend with, so see below.
now you need the forces working against the car's acceleration. for that you use this equation. (notice this equation also factors in aerodynamics, etc)
m = mass (units Kg)
a = acceleration (units m/s^2)
f = dissipative forces (aerodynamic, loss in transmission, etc..) (units Newtons)
theta = incline angle, if you are going up a hill
g = accelration due to gravity (units m/s^2)
F = Net force that the ground exerts on the wheels (units Newtons)
then
m a = F - f - mg sin(theta)
Last edited by S2000man01; Mar 10, 2005 at 11:37 AM.
there are *WAY* too many numbers in this thread.... 
just a troll who likes to laugh at YOU.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: lafayette, IN
Rep Power: 266 jeepers, y'all sure are touchy about this...why not include friction and air resistance if you're going to be such nit-pickers about it?
for what it's worth i'm an engineer, and i agree with orion and s2000man. never, ever try to use such a simple equation (KE = .5mv^2) to describe a real-life situation.
for what it's worth i'm an engineer, and i agree with orion and s2000man. never, ever try to use such a simple equation (KE = .5mv^2) to describe a real-life situation.
just a troll who likes to laugh at YOU.
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 282
Likes: 0
From: lafayette, IN
Rep Power: 266
Originally Posted by gsrchad
I would appreciate if you will not delete this out of respect.. I showed you raw proof that you are wrong...
I would appreciate if you will admit that you are wrong...
I would appreciate if you will admit that you are wrong...
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 i locked the last thread because i got tired of saying the same thing over and over, and i think people were getting tired of readin it. after he emailed me i reopened it, but then found this thread here he had already started.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319
Originally Posted by S2000man01
i locked the last thread because i got tired of saying the same thing over and over, and i think people were getting tired of readin it. after he emailed me i reopened it, but then found this thread here he had already started.
There are a couple of us engineers that can follow it though
And I do enjoy watching people who think what they learned in their entery level undergrad courses apply to the real world, then they get crushed by reality 
Show me your theory backed by a computer simulation that runs your numbers adn then backed by real life experiance and I believe you. Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
There are a couple of us engineers that can follow it though And I do enjoy watching people who think what they learned in their entery level undergrad courses apply to the real world, then they get crushed by reality Show me your theory backed by a computer simulation that runs your numbers adn then backed by real life experiance and I believe you.
And I do enjoy watching people who think what they learned in their entery level undergrad courses apply to the real world, then they get crushed by reality Show me your theory backed by a computer simulation that runs your numbers adn then backed by real life experiance and I believe you.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 319 ^^^ lol, I really wasn't refering to you, or anybody for that matter. I'm just saying it is all speculation and incomplete theories unless you can match numbers with results.
My point still stand though, it's fun to watch people who don't quite understand this try explian stuff, later in engineering they learn common sense >> book smarts
My point still stand though, it's fun to watch people who don't quite understand this try explian stuff, later in engineering they learn common sense >> book smarts
Last edited by Jrfish007; Mar 10, 2005 at 12:30 PM.
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 297 my god!
Originally Posted by gsrchad
The last thread was closed because they were incorrect and didnt want to ramble on any more my sister did this and brother did that and thast what happened...
here are some actual numbers to prove that it doenst matter if its a hill or a flat surface.. if car A wins hill, it will win FLAT....
first thing first...
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
with this in mind... at the end of the race... we will calculate the experimental data... that energy found in the cars kenetic energy CAN NOT be greater OR LESS than the kenetic energy and potential energy at the hill race....
with that being said... lets start
you claim to win flat race.... by 1 car.. so lets say thats about 5mph faster than your buddies camaro...or trans am, whatever it is..
s2000=1255kg say finished at 100mph= 44.7 meters/second
trans am=1551kg and finished behind the s2000 say at 95mph=42.5m/s
at the end of the race, the engine in the honda put (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules of energy....
the trans am put in (.5)(1551)(42.5)=32958 joules
compare the amount of energy the honda and the trans am put into the car... notice the amount was higher for the trans am yet it lost... thats because the honda weighs less...
now, for the hill race. nothing changes BUT the hill is at an incline...
lets say for both races they raced for 10seconds.....actually it doesnt matter what or how long they raced or what theda the hill was at... but lets say the hill was at a 20 degree angle...
OK,
race 2 uphill....
lets go with orions and s2000man recreation... since the first one was correct in his words.. we will compare his ...
this time the trans am/camaro thing was ahead of him by say 1 car also... 3/4 whatever....
sinec they are going uphill, they will be going slower... so the lead instead of 5mph, will be lets say 4mph....
at the end of the race, lets say they shut down at 80mph for the trans am and 76 mph respectivly for the honda...
the speed is lower because we cannot change the the varieables... if we accelerated for 10 seconds on flat road, we must do the same on hill which will result in lower speed... 80mph might not be correct but its quite irrelavent as you will see in a second...
at the shut down point of 80mph, lets say they traveled 1000feet up the hill...
1000feet=304.8meters..
80mph=35.8m/s
76mph=34.0m/s
a hill of 20 degree will have given them a rise above there starting point...
for 20 degree hill, and 1000feet or 304.8meters, thats 104.2meters above their starting point ( or potential energy that left the system).
since the honda was behind this race... lets say it went 103meters above its starting point...
now combining the new KE and PE of each car, this must be
the trans am must put out 117.5% more energy into the its system as compared to the honda. it doenst matter if this race was for 30 minutes or 4 seconds.. the trans am will put out 117.5% more energy because you are not changing the output while driving, such as nitrous or adding someone to the car while racing...
sets see...
trans am (.5)(1551)(35.8)=27762joules... <-- that is all kenetic..
trans am's potential energy is mass x gravity ( 1551 x 9.81)= 15215N x height (104.2meters)= 1585415joules
combine the 2= 1613197 joules..
honda s2000.. ill run the numbers to save you time trying to read this.
(.5)(1255)(34)=21335juoles <-- kenetic energy of moving car
+ potential energy
(1255 x 9.81 x 103)=1268089 joules
combined=1289424 joules...
compare the two...
output for trans am is 125% more than the honda...
how come on the flat the trans am put in only 117% more energy than the honda, but on the hill it put in 125%....THATS BECAUSE IS NOT POSSIBle.... you cannot creat nor destroy energy.. if you had 125% more energy avaliable on the hill, where did it go on the flat.... if it didnt go anywhere, the trans am WOULD NOT HAVE LOST>>>> plain and SIMPLE
the engine doesnt care if your on a hill... it puts in the same amount REGARDLESS...
if you stayed with the 117% more energy than the honda, you would clearly see that its IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE TRANS AM IS IN FRONT....
i have shown your RAW freaking numbers...
SO the FINAL CONCLUSION....
IF You loose on a hill, you will loose on the flat race...
IF you Win on the flat, you will WIN on the hill......
CALL ME THE MYTH BUSTER
here are some actual numbers to prove that it doenst matter if its a hill or a flat surface.. if car A wins hill, it will win FLAT....
first thing first...
KE = 1/2*m*v2,
where m is the mass and v is the velocity
with this in mind... at the end of the race... we will calculate the experimental data... that energy found in the cars kenetic energy CAN NOT be greater OR LESS than the kenetic energy and potential energy at the hill race....
with that being said... lets start
you claim to win flat race.... by 1 car.. so lets say thats about 5mph faster than your buddies camaro...or trans am, whatever it is..
s2000=1255kg say finished at 100mph= 44.7 meters/second
trans am=1551kg and finished behind the s2000 say at 95mph=42.5m/s
at the end of the race, the engine in the honda put (.5)(1255kg)(44.7)=28049joules of energy....
the trans am put in (.5)(1551)(42.5)=32958 joules
compare the amount of energy the honda and the trans am put into the car... notice the amount was higher for the trans am yet it lost... thats because the honda weighs less...
now, for the hill race. nothing changes BUT the hill is at an incline...
lets say for both races they raced for 10seconds.....actually it doesnt matter what or how long they raced or what theda the hill was at... but lets say the hill was at a 20 degree angle...
OK,
race 2 uphill....
lets go with orions and s2000man recreation... since the first one was correct in his words.. we will compare his ...
this time the trans am/camaro thing was ahead of him by say 1 car also... 3/4 whatever....
sinec they are going uphill, they will be going slower... so the lead instead of 5mph, will be lets say 4mph....
at the end of the race, lets say they shut down at 80mph for the trans am and 76 mph respectivly for the honda...
the speed is lower because we cannot change the the varieables... if we accelerated for 10 seconds on flat road, we must do the same on hill which will result in lower speed... 80mph might not be correct but its quite irrelavent as you will see in a second...
at the shut down point of 80mph, lets say they traveled 1000feet up the hill...
1000feet=304.8meters..
80mph=35.8m/s
76mph=34.0m/s
a hill of 20 degree will have given them a rise above there starting point...
for 20 degree hill, and 1000feet or 304.8meters, thats 104.2meters above their starting point ( or potential energy that left the system).
since the honda was behind this race... lets say it went 103meters above its starting point...
now combining the new KE and PE of each car, this must be
the trans am must put out 117.5% more energy into the its system as compared to the honda. it doenst matter if this race was for 30 minutes or 4 seconds.. the trans am will put out 117.5% more energy because you are not changing the output while driving, such as nitrous or adding someone to the car while racing...
sets see...
trans am (.5)(1551)(35.8)=27762joules... <-- that is all kenetic..
trans am's potential energy is mass x gravity ( 1551 x 9.81)= 15215N x height (104.2meters)= 1585415joules
combine the 2= 1613197 joules..
honda s2000.. ill run the numbers to save you time trying to read this.
(.5)(1255)(34)=21335juoles <-- kenetic energy of moving car
+ potential energy
(1255 x 9.81 x 103)=1268089 joules
combined=1289424 joules...
compare the two...
output for trans am is 125% more than the honda...
how come on the flat the trans am put in only 117% more energy than the honda, but on the hill it put in 125%....THATS BECAUSE IS NOT POSSIBle.... you cannot creat nor destroy energy.. if you had 125% more energy avaliable on the hill, where did it go on the flat.... if it didnt go anywhere, the trans am WOULD NOT HAVE LOST>>>> plain and SIMPLE
the engine doesnt care if your on a hill... it puts in the same amount REGARDLESS...
if you stayed with the 117% more energy than the honda, you would clearly see that its IMPOSSIBLE THAT THE TRANS AM IS IN FRONT....
i have shown your RAW freaking numbers...
SO the FINAL CONCLUSION....
IF You loose on a hill, you will loose on the flat race...
IF you Win on the flat, you will WIN on the hill......
CALL ME THE MYTH BUSTER
"how come on the flat the trans am put in only 117% more energy than the honda, but on the hill it put in 125%....THATS BECAUSE IS NOT POSSIBle.... you cannot creat nor destroy energy.. if you had 125% more energy avaliable on the hill, where did it go on the flat.... if it didnt go anywhere, the trans am WOULD NOT HAVE LOST>>>> plain and SIMPLE"
oh my god....
you are totally confused again, and you just ASSUMED several acceleration values and velocity values yourself, with no direction invloved at all.
First of all, do you know velocity is a vector quantity? not scalar? It seems to me you treated everything as a scalar value.
Again, you need to understand force and free body diagram before you can blindly use the kinetic engrgy and potential energy equation. You need to know the direction of velocity vector and that is suppose to be calculated as integration of the resultant acceleration vector. I have not seen you doing any free body diagram, therefore you have no base to assume these speed values you have used.
If you want to talk about conservation of energy then let talk about energy conservation.
================================================== ========
mass1: 10J/10Kg=1J/Kg
mass2: 5J/5Kg=1J/Kg
They have same energy to mass ratio.
Energy is conserved, therefore they will remain constant.
1. At flat, E=KE+PE, PE=0, solve for speed (scalar)
================================================== =======
Mass1: E=10J=KE; KE=1/2mV^2
solve for V:
v=squar(20/m)=1.14 m/s
================================================== =======
mass2:E=10J=KE; KE=1/2mV^2
solve for V:
v=squar(10/m)=1.14 m/s
conclusion: at flat, they have the same speed overall.
================================================== ========
2. At slop,no matter what angle, E=KE+PE,solve for speed (scalar)
to reach a height of 0.01 meter
mass1: E=10J=KE+PE; KE=1/2*m*V^2 ; PE=m*g*h
PE=10*9/8*0.01
10J-PE=KE
solve for v:
v=SQUAR[(10-0.98)/5]=1.36m/s
================================================== =======
mass2: E=10J=KE+PE; KE=1/2*m*V^2 ; PE=m*g*h
PE=5*9/8*0.01
10J-PE=KE
solve for v:
v=SQUAR[(10-0.49)/2.51]=1.95m/s
Conclusion: At any angle slop, if both mass wants to reach at the same height, the larger mass will have
a smaller magnitude of velocity. Both mass will clim at a point that the larger mass loss all its speed
while the smaller mass keep advancing.
Thank you. As I said, physics is physics, weither you understand it or not.
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,501
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 297 don't have to :)
Originally Posted by S2000man01
lol sure i'll just drive down to nasa.
I have proven that while 2 mass have the same energy-mass-ratio, the smaller mass has advantage while climbing.
================================================== =======
mass1: 10J/10Kg=1J/Kg
mass2: 5J/5Kg=1J/Kg
They have same energy to mass ratio.
Energy is conserved, therefore they will remain constant.
1. At flat, E=KE+PE, PE=0, solve for speed (scalar)
================================================== =======
Mass1: E=10J=KE; KE=1/2mV^2
solve for V:
v=squar(20/m)=1.14 m/s
================================================== =======
mass2:E=10J=KE; KE=1/2mV^2
solve for V:
v=squar(10/m)=1.14 m/s
conclusion: at flat, they have the same speed overall.
================================================== ========
2. At slop,no matter what angle, E=KE+PE,solve for speed (scalar)
to reach a height of 0.01 meter
mass1: E=10J=KE+PE; KE=1/2*m*V^2 ; PE=m*g*h
PE=10*9/8*0.01
10J-PE=KE
solve for v:
v=SQUAR[(10-0.98)/5]=1.36m/s
================================================== =======
mass2: E=10J=KE+PE; KE=1/2*m*V^2 ; PE=m*g*h
PE=5*9/8*0.01
10J-PE=KE
solve for v:
v=SQUAR[(10-0.49)/2.51]=1.95m/s
Conclusion: At any angle slop, if both mass wants to reach at the same height, the larger mass will have a smaller magnitude of velocity. Both mass will eventually clim until a point that the larger mass loss all its speed while the smaller mass keep advancing.
WOW... you know what?? I'll solve this problem for you. Just try what s2kman said. GO TAKE YOUR DAMN CAR, DO THE F*CKEN 1/4 MILE, THEN GO UP THE HILL, THEN LOAD IT WITH WEIGHT, THEN DO THEM AGAIN. Instead of figuring out all these freakin equations, GO TRY IT. It shouldn't be that hard! Even if it's not EXACT, you'll get the damn picture. Enough equations! Haven't you had enough in high school?!
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
From: warren ohio
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
Hummm.... typical sophmore/junior in some engineering or physics major. They think they the world can be solved using the theories they learned from their little books. In this case he has gone pretty far to make a point that neglects a very key point.... the suspension. If you are going up a hill, different suspensions will load differently and cuase traction issues.
Edit: However your assumpution are correct and the calculations are good. You have a valid point, but have just left out a few other perameters, that all. And it doesn't hold in all cases, for instance a FWD drive car will not have good traction and hence can not put as much power to the ground, but your calculations where specific to two RWD cars, just be a little more specific when stateting the problems and solutions.
Edit: However your assumpution are correct and the calculations are good. You have a valid point, but have just left out a few other perameters, that all. And it doesn't hold in all cases, for instance a FWD drive car will not have good traction and hence can not put as much power to the ground, but your calculations where specific to two RWD cars, just be a little more specific when stateting the problems and solutions.
first off. this is again nonsense, since both vehicles are rwd, and when on a hill will gain traction. since traction wasnt an issue before it isnt now...
and the solutions were for 2 rwd cars.... so that was enough stating...
should i write this out on my engr paper professor?
Nothing works better than a Chris except a Honda.
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 5,346
Likes: 0
From: Baltimore, MD
Rep Power: 347 bwahaha... This is amusing. I followed some of the equations and once again, I agree with the people that say that it won't matter much and the results will be similar to that on a straight flat.
Think about it, they're both being affected by the same gravity...
Think about it, they're both being affected by the same gravity...
